2879. Can you tell the Committee whether by the last Act of Parliament under which this embankment was to be carried out, a certain term of years w s fixed, beyond which, if those subscriptions were not forthcoming, the Parliam ntary powers were to expire-I believe that was so; and I remember being af aid that it would, therefore because when we found there was an application to Pa liament, and we could get no information. we wrote up to the Office of Works to get information, and we were refused; a letter came down to our vestry, and considering that we were asked what was very impertinent, we got a gentlem: n, an honourable Member, to go with us to Lord Seymour, to complain; when Lord Seymour said, that we came there without knowing what we wanted; and I told him the reason was, that the office refused to give us any information, and he promised to give us that information, but he went out of office.

2880. Was not that information to be obtained in the Act?-It was not passed.

2881. There was in the Act of Parliament a certain term specified beyond which the powers would lapse?—I believe there was; but still we had reason to complain notwithstanding. The agreements were to be entered into first; therefore, if application was made to the parties, and they have entered into the agreements, the Act had been complied with.

2882. Did the parties whose names you have given enter into such agreements?-They have never been applied to.

2883. How do you know that?-By their assurance.

2884. Whose assurance---Mr. Druce's.

2885. Do you know that Lord Cadogan has not been applied to?—I have been assured that Lord Cadogan has not been applied to; I have that from his steward. Mr. Druce said he had never been asked, nor had he made any offer himself. I wrote myself, and got an answer that the Commissioners were not at liberty to treat with any one.

2886. What is it that you ask this Committee, which is appointed to inquire into the Thames Embankment, to do; what do you come here to lay before them?—I was asked to come here to give information upon the embankment; if I were asked my opinion, as an individual, I should say that, when I consider the injury to Chelsea that these repeated delays have been, in holding property from year to year out of rate, some parties having been ruined by it, I should say that we are entitled to have the whole of the work carried out. One individual did apply to them, of the name of Middleton, and they entertained his application; he expected he was going to be treated with, and he continued, week after week, and month after month, applying to the Commissioners after that, but he never got a reply to his letters; he was ruined, and went to Australia.

2887. What commissioners ?-Under the Improvements.

2888. You say you think you are entitled to have this work carried out; do you know out of what funds it could be executed-I had been informed by the Commissioners that there were 38,000l. towards it; subsequently, we have been informed that because that has not been applied before to the carrying out of the work by the Commissioners that therefore it is written off.

2889. Would that 38,000 7. make the embankment ?-I apprehend it would go to Cheyne Walk.

2890. Would it make the work up to Battersea Bridge?—Perhaps it would

not.

2891. Where is the rest of the money to come from?—I am not prepared to say.

2892. Are you prepared to tell the Committee that those gentlemen would be ready to sign an agreement for 12,647 l.?—If you ask my opinion, I cannot conceive how it would be possible. I am not aware that even Lord Calthorpe gets any land, because your road passes close to his wall, and the people lose their waterside premises, unless it is by dock.

2893. The Government of the day stipulated that they would expend 38,0007. in making this embankment, if certain private proprietors would contribute a sum of 12,647 ?—Yes.

2894. Can you tell us that at any time those private proprietors entered into engagements to find that 12,647 l., or that they are now willing to enter into such engagements? I have, as I have stated, the assurance of Lord Cadogan's

Mr. J. Perry.

3 July 1860.

Mr. J. Perry. 3 July 1860.

steward that he is, for one; I have the fullest information to entitle me to say that he has never been applied to, and that Mr. Druce said that if the embankment were carried past his premises he should not interfere, and that he would leave to arbitration whether he was benefited or injured.

2895. You do not take Mr. Druce as a consenting party at the amount named in the figures which you have given in ?—No.

2896. Mr. Tite.] Do you consider that it was not the business of Chelsea to apply to those gentlemen, but the duty of the Government who undertook the embankment ?-Yes.

2897. And if they refused the Government would be absolved ?—Yes.

2898. The applications you speak of came to your knowledge as a private individual?-Rather as being a vestryman.

2899. With respect to your coming here to give evidence, is it not the fact that I have presented petitions from the vestry of Chelsea, and have suggested deputations to (I think) three Chief Commissioners of Works, urging on the part of Chelsea, and on the part of the vestry of Chelsea their anxiety to have this thing taken up and carried out ?—Yes.

2900. That is the reason why you come here?—Yes; I was sent here by our vestry.

2901. Do you then happen to know the length of the embankment which has been made already?—About a mile and a half. I believe it is considered two miles from Battersea bridge to Vauxhall bridge.

2902. We will take it as a mile and a half; what has been the cost of that? -The cost of that is part of the 145,753 7.; the amount stated by Mr. Pennethorne to have been reserved for the Chelsea portion of the embankment, was about 50,000 /. ?—Yes.

2903. And then about half a mile remains to be completed-Yes.

2904. It terminates now at the Smith-street sewer? Yes.

2905. Which is at the west end of Chelsea Hospital ?--Yes.

2906. From there to old Battersea bridge still remains to be completed?Yes.

2907. Half a mile being the length ?—Yes.

2908. A mile and a half having been completed out of the 110,000 l. so voted, with the assistance of private individuals ?—Yes.

2909. Lord John Manners.] I think I had some correspondence and some communication with the vestry of Chelsea when I was last in office?—Yes.

2910. Have you brought the last letter that passed between us?—It was in the nature of a memorial from the vestry.

2911. To that memorial some answer was returned?-Only the answer which took place at the interview, a record of which was printed afterwards. 2912. Have you that here?—Yes.

2913. Will you read the concluding part?" The First Commissioner expressed himself in reply to the following effect, viz.: That it was quite true that until last year there was a sum amounting to between 30,000 l. and 40,000 l., applicable to the completion of the western end of the embankment, but that this money could not now be made use of for that purpose without a further Act of Parliament; that it was unlikely this would be sufficient, without the agree ments were entered into with the landowners, and the contributions made by them, which formed a main feature of the original plan. That his opinion was, that Parliament would never consent to an increased vote for the purpose, nor would the Government feel justified in asking for such an increase. If ever this portion of the embankment were to be carried out, the extra cost beyond the amount voted, must be provided by the parish or by the owners of the land benefited. He would, however, put himself in communication with the Treasury respecting the application of the above sum for this particular purpose, and would have the estimate of the cost revised by the surveyor connected with his department, and communicate the result to Mr. Tite for the information of the vestry.

Mr. John Edwin Bradfield, called in; and Examined.

2914. Chairman.] WHAT is your occupation?-I am Secretary to the Toll Reform Committee; I was secretary in 1855 to the stage coach proprietors. 2915. And you know a good deal about the taxation on hackney carriages?— I am acquainted generally with the working of public carriages in the metropolis of all descriptions.

2916. You sent me a statement upon the subject, which I have here?—Not being in the trades to which that has reference, my communication is a digest of information that I have collected from various sources; I will answer any questions the Committee may please to put upon it.

2917. The Government get a mileage duty for omnibuses styled in the Act of Parliament, Metropolitan (Stage) Carriages; a license duty for carriages, styled Hackney Carriages; now, what difference is there as to the metropolitan stage carriages and the stage carriages in any other town?-There is no difference, except that there is a local jurisdiction for inspection of carriages, the licensing of drivers, and the numbering of the carriages.

2918. They pay the same?-Yes, they pay the same.

2919. But they do not pay the license for the driver or the conductor in the country-No; the stage coach if it runs to a place out of the metropolitan area, is no longer a metropolitan stage carriage, and therefore it is not under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police; therefore, all the coaches in the country come under the Stage Carriage Act alone, and not under the Metropolitan Carriage Acts.

2920. Do omnibuses pay in Manchester differently from what they do in London? They are under the same regulations so far as the imperial duties are concerned.

2921. But the drivers are not ?-The drivers are not. There is a distinction in the metropolis with regard to the wearing of the badge; in all other respects, I think, they are the same. I may mention that the whole of the steamboats on the Thames have never contributed a farthing.

2922. Lord Robert Montagu.] Do not they do good to the Thames by stirring up the mud?—I am looking to it as a question of imperial taxation; the license to a public carriage is to ply for hire.

2923. Chairman.] Is it your opinion that steamboats and also railway carriages which are purely metropolitan, and also vans and all other vehicles ought to be put as nearly as possible on a par?-My idea is that those machines, whether moved by horse power or by steam power, conveying the metropolitan public, should be placed on an equality of taxation so far as regards imperial purposes. 2924. Lord Robert Montagu.] Do you consider that carriages plying in the street do injury to the streets?—I am applying myself to those taxes only which go into Her Majesty's Exchequer; not one farthing of those are paid for local purposes: the railways pay a tax of 5 per cent. upon their first and second class passengers; that goes into the Exchequer: the omnibuses pay a sum of 1 d. a mile upon every mile the carriages travel, whether they are full or empty; that goes into the Exchequer : the hackney carriage pays 1 s. a day; that also goes into the Exchequer there is no local due whatever in respect of metropolitan carriages.

2925. Mr. Tite.] No local appropriation ?—No.

Mr.

J. E. Bradfield.

10 July 1860.

Mr.

J. E. Bradfield.

10 July 1860.

2926. Lord Robert Montagu.] Who pays for the repair of the pavings, and so on?-In the inner heart of London the ratepayers; in the outer area it is paid for out of tolls.

2927. Mr. Tite.] Where there are tolls ?-Yes, where there are tolls.

2928. Chairman.] Do the tolls of London constitute a great tax upon omnibuses? I could give a great number of instances, but the most forcible would be Kensington Gate; the toll is 3 d. per horse there. If an omnibus with two horses passes through that gate ten times a day it pays 91 l. a year in tolls; the mileage duty for 60 miles comes to 91 l. per annum also, being a 1 d. per mile, so that there is a tax of 180 l. per annum upon a single omnibus in that district; the consequence is, that the fares in Kensington are very high. The tolls collected in Kensington do not go merely to the repair of the Kensington road, but some part of the fund goes for the repair of roads in other districts.

2929. You say in your statement, that a London cab working three horses, pays in addition to the license of 20 s. a year, 1 s. per day, which, for a seven days' cab, comes to 6 l. per horse per annum; do you know enough of the working of hackney carriages in London to give the Committee a good opinion as to the number of horses generally worked by cabs?--It varies a great deal with different proprietors; some keep what are called rest horses; if they keep those rest horses, a London cab is worked by two horses and the rest horses; you may take it, speaking generally, perhaps, that seven horses may be said to work three London cabs; I think that is a very near approximation.

2930. You have made your calculation upon three horses?-That was for the purpose of under-rating the amount of taxation upon the proprietor; I assumed that he had three horses, and 187. a year, where he pays full duty, would come to 6 l. per horse. I did it with a view of showing some circumstances that are known to me in connexion with provincial towns; that in some provincial towns of England, and also in Scotland, the cab trade is worked under the post-horse license; under the post-horse license a man may pay about 30 s. per horse, whilst the London trade is worked for the same description of traffic, paying 6. to the Government : now, the advantages are these, that the post-horse proprietors in provincial towns, such as Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, Bristol, are enabled to pay a small local duty (which is applied to the lighting and improvement of the towns and boroughs), and the regulation is, that a man having a post-horse license may use those horses in cabs, provided he pays a certain local duty; and he goes on to the public stand, the fares being regulated by the magistrates. The result is very material as regards London, because the London cab proprietors pay 80,000l. a year, while if they were taxed in the same ratio, they would only pay 15,000 l. a year. 2931. That is based upon the notion of three horses to a cab?--Yes. 2932. But supposing it is seven horses working three cabs, then the proportion would be so much greater?-Yes; it is rather difficult to ascertain the exact number of horses used in cabs, because some of the proprietors are engaged in other businesses, and some are engaged in the omnibus trade, and therefore the horses used in hackney carriages one day, may be found the following day in omnibuses; the duty is paid on a license to ply for hire.

2933. You know one particular place, Liverpool, from which you have specific information?—Yes; I wrote and got an answer. Liverpool, " 100%. a year for posthorse licenses; power to let 60 horses and carriages unlimited for cabs on public stands at a fare of 1 s. per mile, and 6 d. for every mile after" That is the case at Liverpool; the tax in London would be 360 l. There is a local duty in Liverpool, which is applied to the borough fund, for those cabs, but it is very small in amount. There is another case, which is Portsmouth; there the local duty is applied to paving and lighting.

2934. Mr. Walter.] Under what name is the cab-owners' duty collected, where it is levied; I speak generally, not particularly as to London?-Post-horse duty. 2935. The duty of 6 l., I mean?-That is the London duty, 1 s. per day; the cab master in London pays 20 s. for an annual license, and 1 s. per day; that would come, for three horses, to about 6. per annum. A man in the country takes his license out under the post-horse license, and the scale there begins at 7 l. 10 s. the one horse, and ranges up, as in a case here, to 20 horses paying 60 l.; or, in the case of Liverpool, 60 horses paying 100 l.: 6,020 horses, which is the yearly number of horses used by the London General Omnibus Company, could be worked in that way for 6,060 l., instead of 52,000l.

2936. Chairman.] Those do the same work as in London, do they not?-No,

because

because they are stage carriages in that case. I am speaking about the difference between post-horse carriages and cabs. I ought to have applied myself entirely to carriages, and not have referred to the omnibuses.

2937. According to your tables, the cab fare is cheaper in London than in any other place, notwithstanding the difference of duty?--The nearest approach to it is Birmingham; the cabs are 8 d. per mile there; and at Leeds, for two passengers, it is the same; and so in other towns. In Glasgow the first mile is 6 d. 2338. And you have got Brighton in your list; they pay 10 s. per plate there, as they do in London? There is 10 s. per plate. The carriages are inspected by the town council there, and they give them a plate, which enables them to go upon the stand; they are not allowed to ply for hire in the streets otherwise. 2939. What becomes of that amount ?-It goes to the town council. 2940. For local purposes

Yes, for local purposes; and the same at Ports

mouth it is 7 s. 6 d. in that case.

2941. Seven shillings and sixpence for each cab-Yes. At Glasgow it is statute labour, one guinea; that applies to all horses in Glasgow, and goes to the improvements generally.

2942. Mr. Tite.] I understand you to imply generally that the duty paid in London for working cabs or omnibuses is far greater than the duty paid in local towns?-So far as hackney carriages are concerned.

2943. Hackney carriages are what I mean, omnibuses and carriages? -- No; an omnibus is legally styled in the Act of Parliament a metropolitan stage carriage; it formerly was a stage coach, and was licensed under the old Stage Coach Act; the duty is there regulated by the mileage.

2944. Does that differ in effect, or in regulation, from the duty paid by hackney carriages in other parts of the kingdom?--Yes.

2945. Either more or less? Considerably against the omnibus proprietor. 2946. The omnibus proprietor pays much more under the present law than is paid in other parts of the country under the Stage Coach Act?—No; the London omnibus proprietor pays the same as the country omnibus proprietor, but he does not pay the same as the post-horse proprietor; it is the post-horse proprietor who turns the cab out; "cab" is a term not recognised in the Act, and that creates a little confusion.

2947. I do not concern myself about the terms; there are omnibuses in plenty in Liverpool; do they pay the same duty, and in the same proportion, and the same way as the omuibuses in London ?-Yes, they do.

2948. There is no inequality there?-None whatever.

2949. There are plenty of cabs in Liverpool; do they pay in a different way; and do they pay less or more than a cab proprietor in London?--Yes, in Liverpool they pay considerably less than in London.

2950. How does that arise?-From a special Act of Parliament regulating the hackney carriages of the metropolis, which does not extend to any other town. 2951. There is an Act of Parliament which throws a heavier burden upon the cab proprietor of the metropolis than falls upon the cab proprietor in other local cities or towns ?—Yes.

2952. And does that make the difference which you allege to exist, to the prejudice of the cab proprietor, and which the Government puts into their pockets in giving it to those who wear out the streets - They take it from those who wear out the streets.

2953. In both cases?—Yes.

2954. But you mean, they take more from those who wear out the streets in Liverpool, or less than they take from those who wear out the streets in London, while in both cases the money goes into the Exchequer, and not to the local relief of either place ?-The Government take from the parties in Liverpool considerably less than they take from the parties in London, and the fares are higher in Liverpool than in London.

2955. You have told us that the sum of money which goes into the Exchequer mile for mile, and horse for horse in Liverpool, is a larger sum than that which goes into the Exchequer in London, mile for mile and horse for horse; is that so? -Yes.

2956. In what way?-The Post Horse Amendment Act, the 16th & 17th Victoria, chapter 88, enables the country proprietor to pay his duties under that Act; while by Mr. Fitzroy's Act and its amendments of the same year, a higher rate of duty, or rather a peculiar duty is charged upon the London hackney carriages.

Mr.

J. E. Bradfield.

10 July 1860.